↓ Skip to main content

The role of interdisciplinary research team in the impact of health apps in health and computer science publications: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in BioMedical Engineering OnLine, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
216 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The role of interdisciplinary research team in the impact of health apps in health and computer science publications: a systematic review
Published in
BioMedical Engineering OnLine, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12938-016-0185-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Guillermo Molina Recio, Laura García-Hernández, Rafael Molina Luque, Lorenzo Salas-Morera

Abstract

Several studies have estimated the potential economic and social impact of the mHealth development. Considering the latest study by Institute for Healthcare Informatics, more than 165.000 apps of health and medicine are offered including all the stores from different platforms. Thus, the global mHealth market was an estimated $10.5 billion in 2014 and is expected to grow 33.5 percent annually between 2015 and 2020s. In fact, apps of Health have become the third-fastest growing category, only after games and utilities. This study aims to identify, study and evaluate the role of interdisciplinary research teams in the development of articles and applications in the field of mHealth. It also aims to evaluate the impact that the development of mHealth has had on the health and computer science field, through the study of publications in specific databases for each area which have been published until nowadays. Interdisciplinary nature is strongly connected to the scientific quality of the journal in which the work is published. This way, there are significant differences in those works that are made up by an interdisciplinary research team because of they achieve to publish in journals with higher quartiles. There are already studies that warn of methodological deficits in some studies in mHealth, low accuracy and no reproducibility. Studies of low precision and poor reproducibility, coupled with the low evidence, provide low degrees of recommendation of the interventions targeted and therefore low applicability. From the evidence of this study, working in interdisciplinary groups from different areas greatly enhances the quality of research work as well as the quality of the publications derived from its results.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 216 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 214 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 31 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 29 13%
Student > Bachelor 27 13%
Researcher 21 10%
Other 13 6%
Other 41 19%
Unknown 54 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 33 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 32 15%
Computer Science 24 11%
Engineering 16 7%
Social Sciences 12 6%
Other 36 17%
Unknown 63 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 August 2016.
All research outputs
#15,380,359
of 22,881,154 outputs
Outputs from BioMedical Engineering OnLine
#423
of 822 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#227,874
of 355,948 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BioMedical Engineering OnLine
#9
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,881,154 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 822 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 355,948 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.